From Potsdam to London and Back: What Happens When Plagiarism Investigations Derail

This preprint presents an institutional and governance-focused analysis of how King’s College London and the University of Potsdam have responded to plagiarism allegations surrounding the 1992 PhD dissertation of Rabbi Professor Walter Homolka. The paper does not attempt to adjudicate the allegations or determine wrongdoing. No assertion is made regarding whether plagiarism occurred, whether academic misconduct took place, or whether institutional actors acted improperly. The purpose of the paper is analytic rather than accusatory. It examines procedural transparency, timelines, communication, and accountability frameworks as they relate to university-level misconduct handling, with emphasis on systemic vulnerabilities and policy implications. While the manuscript discusses publicly reported claims and summarizes available documentation, the question of scholarly misconduct remains unresolved by competent authorities, and the final determination lies exclusively with King’s College London and the University of Potsdam. The author has examined the publicly known materials and has independently verified textual parallels between the 1992 dissertation and the 1986 typescript by Dorothee Schlenke. A sample comparison is provided as publicly verifiable supporting material. However, textual similarity alone does not constitute a formal finding of plagiarism. The analysis offered here evaluates institutional process rather than guilt, and any statements regarding textual overlap should be understood within that evidentiary limitation. Readers are encouraged to interpret this preprint as a contribution to research-integrity policy—not as a judgement on individuals or institutions. All claims discussed are based on documented sources identified within the manuscript, and further developments or official determinations may supersede current information. Questions, corrections, or documentation relevant to procedural clarity may be sent directly to the author for scholarly exchange. Abstract: This article examines how King’s College London and the University of Potsdam have handled plagiarism allegations against Walter Homolka as a case study in the governance of academic integrity in cross-national higher education systems. Drawing on scholarship that conceptualizes scientific misconduct as a systemic rather than purely individual phenomenon, the analysis focuses on delays, restricted transparency, and inconsistencies in communication and access to information. Three governance issues are highlighted: the prolonged lack of procedural clarity surrounding King’s College London’s internal review; vulnerabilities in the University of Potsdam’s application of its own plagiarism policy and freedom-of-information regulations; and the distinctive risks these weaknesses pose for the credibility of a newly institutionalized academic field—Jewish Theology. The article does not adjudicate the underlying allegations. Instead, it argues that the case exposes structural deficiencies in how universities manage serious accusations of academic misconduct, and that these deficiencies point to a need for clearer procedures, more consistent communication, and strengthened institutional safeguards, in full recognition of the intricate dynamics of “regulative power”. Keywords: academic integrity; plagiarism investigations; scientific misconduct; university governance; public knowledge; transparency and accountability; freedom of information; institutional ethics; knowledge systems; vulnerable academic fields; Walter Homolka. FAQ – From Potsdam to London and Back: What Happens When Plagiarism Investigations Derail 1. Does this paper claim that plagiarism has been proven? No. The paper does not assert that plagiarism occurred or that any party is guilty of misconduct. It examines institutional responses to allegations, not the truth of those allegations. 2. What evidence does the paper rely on? The analysis draws on publicly available documents, press reports, institutional statements, FOI/AIG correspondence, and formal university communications. A comparison sample of textual parallels between Homolka’s dissertation and Schlenke’s 1986 typescript is provided for transparency and scholarly scrutiny. 3. Did the author verify any of the alleged textual overlap? Yes. The author personally reviewed the dissertation and the 1986 Schlenke typescript and verified instances of close textual similarity. A sample comparison is publicly archived for independent verification. However, textual similarity alone does not establish plagiarism; only the degree-granting institution can determine this formally. 4. So what is the paper actually arguing? The central argument is that procedural opacity, delays, and inconsistent communication in handling serious research misconduct allegations indicate structural weaknesses in academic governance. The analysis highlights the need for timely, transparent, and accountable institutional processes in such cases. 5. Why focus on Jewish Theology as a field? Because Jewish Theology at Potsdam is newly institutionalized within the German public-university system. When allegations of plagiarism remain unresolved for years, it not only affects individuals but may also impact the legitimacy and stability of an emerging discipline. 6. Does this paper accuse King’s College London or the University of Potsdam of wrongdoing? No. It analyzes procedural outcomes and communication patterns, not motives or misconduct. The paper does not infer intent on the part of any institution or individual. 7. Why publish this as a preprint? Preprint publication supports transparency, scholarly discourse, and timely access to primary evidence. The goal is to facilitate academic discussion of institutional integrity mechanisms while recognizing that official findings may still be forthcoming. 8. Could future information change the conclusions? Absolutely. If King’s College London or the University of Potsdam publish final reports, review outcomes, or further clarifications, the analysis may need updating. The author welcomes new documentation and will revise the study accordingly. 9. Is this a critique of an individual or a system? A system. The focus is on structural conditions that shape academic-misconduct handling in large institutions. Individual actions are discussed only insofar as they illuminate broader governance tensions. 10. What does the author hope the paper will achieve? To encourage universities to adopt: time-bound inquiry frameworks minimum transparency standards clear internal responsibility even when external bodies are involved and to stimulate broader debate on research-integrity governance.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.